This follows attacks on the Union’s approach to norm-setting by leading US figures who implied that it was designed to keep American firms out of Europe.

US Under-Secretary for Commerce David Aaron warned recently that a conflict was brewing over the Union’s strategy of establishing one set of approved standards for certain products, such as GSM mobile phones, in contrast to the US’ more laissez faire approach under which more than 300 bodies and industry groups vie with each another to publish norms and specifications.

“The two philosophies are colliding.

We believe the market ought to establish standards,” he said.

Meanwhile, Ray Klammer, director of the American National Institute for Standards and Technology (ANSI), insisted at a recent meeting with Congress that the country must match the EU’s standards efforts or it would lose out.

“The United States needs an effective national standards strategy if we are to compete effectively in the global market. Europe does have a strategy and it is running full throttle,” he argued.

But Reinhard Büscher, who is in charge of the electronic commerce standards unit in the Commission, claimed the US’ criticisms were way off the mark.

“These accusations were completely wrong for two reasons. Before the EU’s internal market, US firms had to face 15 sets of national standards, not just EU standards,” he pointed out. “If firms want to use their own standard they can do so, as long as they prove that it is in conformity with EU law. The conformity assessments are easier, cheaper and less bureaucratic. For the US, anything which is not like their own system is often talked about as a trade barrier.”

Büscher also hit out at accusations that the EU was playing hardball with the US over new electronic commerce, information technology and telecom standards.

Washington has been grumbling behind the scenes about the Union’s efforts to push for a common standard for the next generation of mobile phone technology.

“I cannot understand what they mean by these arguments,” responded Büscher. “There is nothing like an EU strategy to target US companies and fight against US technologies in these sectors. This would be complete nonsense. We fully respect the World Trade Organisation and other trade arrangements.”

He said the Commission’s activities in this field were aimed only at persuading companies to put together a consensus on standards and to help firms select the norms to be used for their own purchases.

In any event, he claimed, Aaron had now moderated his views, while Klammer was stoking up fears about the EU’s standards strategy in order to win a larger government grant for ANSI’s activities.

“The whole thing was launched to attract public interest,” he insisted. “This was to convince their policy-makers at home.”